NOTES will be the underlying currency, just like BTS in BitShares. Therefore bitAssets on the music chain will be collateralized by NOTES. The market and price of bitAssets is completely independent from the BitShares chain. That means, that one bitUSD on the BTS chain will have a different price than one "bitUSD" (or noteUSD) on the music chain.It is just a way to express that the bitAssets are created on the independent music chain.

sumantso

Do you think that the average music listener wants to buy music using a complicated share mechanism that has a constant volitile price? NOTES aren't for users, they are for shareholders

The average music listeners will be clicking some buttons on a website. They needn't know if there is NoteUSD or NOTES below it. The website can simply price it in USD, like the BTC accepting merchants.

I am quite comfortable with the fact that they chose to be an independent chain; they were generous with their allocation and I feel that the whole merger situation sorted itself out organically giving us decent decentralization while leaving our main product in a strong position.

Do you think that the average music listener wants to buy music using a complicated share mechanism that has a constant volitile price? NOTES aren't for users, they are for shareholders

The average music listeners will be clicking some buttons on a website. They needn't know if there is NoteUSD or NOTES below it. The website can simply price it in USD, like the BTC accepting merchants.

Traders will take short positions and create noteUSD with their NOTES as collateral.This is back-end stuff that the music purchasers would not need to see.This allows for the creation of a stable crypto-currency on the bitshares-music block chain.

Now front end users can go onto the peer tracks music website and buy some noteUSD with their credit card and purchase music.

We cant expect listeners to purchase and use NOTES. They would be exposed to price fluctuations which would cause the music to become 'cheaper' or 'more expensive' each day.

Can't NOTEs be used as the underlying currency, like BTS is used in BitShares? It seems to be quite redundant to have NoteUSD and it brings with it its own problems.

Because the average user needs a stable currency, if he puts 10$ in he should still have $10 worth a month later if he hasn't spent it. Also because songs etc should have a stable price, not 10 BTS today, 15 BTS tomorrow, 5 BTS next week.

I still prefer the idea of BitShares Music issuing its stake as a special UIA on the BitShares blockchain and using BitUSD derivatives backed by the real BitUSD held in special reserves on the BitShares blockchain.

That way users can take advantage of the superior liquidity of the markets in the BitShares blockchain and BitShares Music can instead only focus on its special business logic.

Can't NOTEs be used as the underlying currency, like BTS is used in BitShares? It seems to be quite redundant to have NoteUSD and it brings with it its own problems.

Because the average user needs a stable currency, if he puts 10$ in he should still have $10 worth a month later if he hasn't spent it. Also because songs etc should have a stable price, not 10 BTS today, 15 BTS tomorrow, 5 BTS next week.

Can't NOTEs be used as the underlying currency, like BTS is used in BitShares? It seems to be quite redundant to have NoteUSD and it brings with it its own problems.

Because the average user needs a stable currency, if he puts 10$ in he should still have $10 worth a month later if he hasn't spent it. Also because songs etc should have a stable price, not 10 BTS today, 15 BTS tomorrow, 5 BTS next week.

It seems like NoteUSD is the equivalent of BitUSD except orchestrated by a separate blockchain that uses Notes instead of BTS.

My question is why not use BitUSD and BitShares instead of NoteUSD and Notes?

Because it's on a different blockchain with it's own version of assets specifically tailored to artists.

LOL yeah but why doesn't BitShares have the capability to do that?

Mixing the two doesn't seem like a good idea to me, Music will have very specific requirements for it's assets and user issued assets that will be very different from Bitshares. Let Bitshares be a financial DAC and Music be a music DAC imo.

Can't NOTEs be used as the underlying currency, like BTS is used in BitShares? It seems to be quite redundant to have NoteUSD and it brings with it its own problems.

Because the average user needs a stable currency, if he puts 10$ in he should still have $10 worth a month later if he hasn't spent it. Also because songs etc should have a stable price, not 10 BTS today, 15 BTS tomorrow, 5 BTS next week.

It seems like NoteUSD is the equivalent of BitUSD except orchestrated by a separate blockchain that uses Notes instead of BTS.

My question is why not use BitUSD and BitShares instead of NoteUSD and Notes?

Because it's on a different blockchain with it's own version of assets specifically tailored to artists.

LOL yeah but why doesn't BitShares have the capability to do that?

Mixing the two doesn't seem like a good idea to me, Music will have very specific requirements for it's assets and user issued assets that will be very different from Bitshares. Let Bitshares be a financial DAC and Music be a music DAC imo.

I guess you would also prefer a separate blockchain for movies, software, books and each other digital content medium or is music the only one that needs it's own blockchain?

If these things have been explained in detail please point me to the info. I haven't found it.

Can't NOTEs be used as the underlying currency, like BTS is used in BitShares? It seems to be quite redundant to have NoteUSD and it brings with it its own problems.

Because the average user needs a stable currency, if he puts 10$ in he should still have $10 worth a month later if he hasn't spent it. Also because songs etc should have a stable price, not 10 BTS today, 15 BTS tomorrow, 5 BTS next week.

It seems like NoteUSD is the equivalent of BitUSD except orchestrated by a separate blockchain that uses Notes instead of BTS.

My question is why not use BitUSD and BitShares instead of NoteUSD and Notes?

Because it's on a different blockchain with it's own version of assets specifically tailored to artists.

LOL yeah but why doesn't BitShares have the capability to do that?

Mixing the two doesn't seem like a good idea to me, Music will have very specific requirements for it's assets and user issued assets that will be very different from Bitshares. Let Bitshares be a financial DAC and Music be a music DAC imo.

I guess you would also prefer a separate blockchain for movies, software, books and each other digital content medium or is music the only one that needs it's own blockchain?

If these things have been explained in detail please point me to the info. I haven't found it.

If they use a system like that of Music then they could be integrated on the same blockchain. I believe cob explained the need for a separate blockchain somewhere but I don't have any references for it, you could look through his posts.

If they use a system like that of Music then they could be integrated on the same blockchain. I believe cob explained the need for a separate blockchain somewhere but I don't have any references for it, you could look through his posts.

There is no need for a separate blockchain. Any BitShares Music features could be implemented on the BTS blockchain. But that would require another "merger" and diluting BTS even more to absorb Note holders and the right to use all BTC collected in the crowdsale. I don't think anyone wants to go through that again.

I agree with keeping BitShares Music as a separate DAC with their own stakeholders. And I agree with BitShares Music having its own asset that is pegged to the US dollar since a price stable currency will be essential for the users of the system.

If these requirements are satisfied in the typical way, this necessitates NoteUSD collateralized by Notes on a decentralized exchange on the BitShares Music blockchain. Of course there is the other way of doing it that has its own trade offs.

There is no need for a separate blockchain. Any BitShares Music features could be implemented on the BTS blockchain. But that would require another "merger" and diluting BTS even more to absorb Note holders and the right to use all BTC collected in the crowdsale. I don't think anyone wants to go through that again.